Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nominations Sent to the Senate (President Bush renominates Judges!)
The White House ^ | February 14, 2005 | White House Office of the Press Secretary

Posted on 02/14/2005 2:20:21 PM PST by FreedomPoster

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Terrence W. Boyle, of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, vice J. Dickson Phillips, Jr., retired.

Janice R. Brown, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice Stephen F. Williams, retired.

Richard A. Griffin, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice Damon J. Keith, retired.

Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice Patricia M. Wald, retired.

William James Haynes II, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, vice H. Emory Widener, Jr., retired.

Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice Laurence H. Silberman, retired.

David W. McKeague, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice Richard F. Suhrheinrich, retired.

William Gerry Myers III, of Idaho, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Thomas G. Nelson, retired.

Susan Bieke Neilson, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice Cornelia G. Kennedy, retired.

Priscilla Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice William L. Garwood, retired.

William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, vice Emmett Ripley Cox, retired.

Henry W. Saad, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice James L. Ryan, retired.

Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, vice a new position created by Public Law 107273, approved November 2, 2002.

Sean F. Cox, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, vice Lawrence P. Zatkoff, retired.

Paul A. Crotty, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Harold Baer, Jr., retired.

James C. Dever III, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, vice W. Earl Britt, retired.

Thomas L. Ludington, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, vice Paul V. Gadola, retired.

Daniel P. Ryan, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, vice Patrick J. Duggan, retired.

J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, to be United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, vice Alan C. Kay, retired.

Peter G. Sheridan, of New Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, vice Stephen M. Orlofsky, resigned.

Jennifer M. Anderson, of the District of Columbia, to be Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Steffen W. Graae, retired.

Laura A. Cordero, of the District of Columbia, to be Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Shellie F. Bowers, retired.

A. Nol Anketell Kramer, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for the term of fifteen years, vice John M. Steadman, retired.

Juliet JoAnn McKenna, of the District of Columbia, to be Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Nan R. Shuker, retired.

Gretchen C.F. Shappert, of North Carolina, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, for the term of four years, vice Robert J. Conrad, Jr., resigned.

Earl C. Aguigui, of Guam, to be United States Marshal for the District of Guam and concurrently United States Marshal for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands for the term of four years, vice Joaquin L.G. Salas, term expired.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: judicial; judicialnominees; nominees; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-205 next last
To: Semper Paratus

Frist is determined.

The rats know it. They will cave in. They don't want the appointment filibusters to totally disappear.


101 posted on 02/14/2005 3:38:54 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

I treat the phone callers like any other telemarketer. I'm convinced that they are just hired by the RNC and are working on commission of some sort. I have phoned RNC headquarters in DC in the past when it almost felt like harassment.

I said "I will vote for W no matter what, but I am worried that the constant harassment might turn off a soft or wavering voter."


102 posted on 02/14/2005 3:42:33 PM PST by maica (Ask a Dem: "When did promoting Democracy and Freedom in the World become a Bad Thing??")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Lets bring Bork back for a nomination? :o) Just for fun!


103 posted on 02/14/2005 3:43:01 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature (If Islam is a religion of peace, they should fire their P.R. guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Spacetrucker
Where is Pickering?

Pickering has retired. His appointment to the Appeals court was knowingly planned to be his last hurrah.

That's why Bush gave him an interim appointment and Pickering accepted it.

104 posted on 02/14/2005 3:43:17 PM PST by okie01 (A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: planekT
repubs should use the nuclear option

can you explain 'the nuclear option'? -thnx
105 posted on 02/14/2005 3:43:39 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

"Glad to see Janice Rogers Brown up again".

____________________________________________

Nobody can accuse the Prez of lacking testicular fortitude!


106 posted on 02/14/2005 3:44:06 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks; arasina; Petronski; MeekOneGOP; GeronL; fatima; Owl_Eagle
Arlen Specter's theme song:

DONALD, WHERE'S YOUR TROUSERS?

107 posted on 02/14/2005 3:44:37 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("There is some sugar...It's harder in the case of fires. The tariffs are too high!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Maybe W is saving Estrada for a bigger position.


108 posted on 02/14/2005 3:47:33 PM PST by pieces of time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IndianaRed80
You joined the forum to make that one post?

How interesting...

109 posted on 02/14/2005 3:48:10 PM PST by okie01 (A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

On the front page of my website -- www.fairjudiciary.com -- there is a link to a Harvard Law Journal article on the nuclear option.


110 posted on 02/14/2005 3:49:28 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

...can you explain 'the nuclear option'? -thnx...

Well, sort of. It would reverse an earlier rule which was set.

I've seen conflicting accounts as to whether this is a two thirds vote or just a majority vote needed to change the rule. The article today with Frist claiming he has the 51 votes needed would lead me to think that it would be brought up to the floor for a simple majority vote.


111 posted on 02/14/2005 3:50:20 PM PST by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Excellent catch, okie.


112 posted on 02/14/2005 3:50:27 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sasafras
Bush please stand up for social conservatism - which he has not done in the past.

Not even once? Never? At all? In no instance?

113 posted on 02/14/2005 3:53:06 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Look it up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: planekT

In addition to the link on my website -- www.fairjudiciary.com -- to the Harvard Law Journal piece, here is a piece from Sen. Hatch's office:


Solving the Judicial Nomination Filibuster Crisis



The Crisis



During the 108th Congress (2003-04), the Senate voted on 20 motions to end debate, or invoke cloture, on 10 different judicial nominees. The average tally was 53-43, enough to confirm them but less than the 60 votes Rule 22 requires to invoke cloture. Opposition to cloture on each vote was completely partisan. Before 2003, the Senate took 15 cloture votes on 14 different judicial nominees, and 13 of those were confirmed (three after a cloture vote failed). The 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was withdrawn, at the nominee’s request, the day after a failed cloture vote indicated he did not have clear majority support. Opposition to cloture, and to the nomination, was almost evenly bi-partisan.



Before 2003, no judicial nomination with clear majority support was defeated by a filibuster.



Senate Rules



Rule 5.2 “The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.”



Rule 20.1 “A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings…and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate….and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.”



Rule 20.2 “The Presiding Officer may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate.”



Rule 22.2 passage of “a motion…to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business” requires “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting”



The Constitution



Article I, Section 5 “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”



Article II, Section 2 “The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”



Historical Notes



The first Senate’s Rule 8, adopted in 1789, allowed a simple majority to move the “previous question” and had been used by the British Parliament and Continental Congress. Though there is no evidence that America’s founders contemplated what we today call a filibuster, dropping Rule 8 in 1806 at least made filibusters possible because ending debate then required unanimous consent. The first filibusters in the 1830s sparked a continuous effort at filibuster reform. In 1917, public criticism of a filibuster blocking a bill for arming merchant ships prompted the Senate to pass Rule 22, which required two-thirds of Senators present and voting to invoke cloture on a “pending measure.” In 1949, coverage was broadened to include any “matter pending” before the Senate and the threshold raised to two-thirds Senators chosen and sworn; motions to amend Senate rules were exempt. The debate over this rules change included no mention of nomination filibusters. In 1959, the threshold was reduced to two-thirds of Senators present and voting, including on motions to amend the rules, and the statement added to what is today Rule 5 that Senate rules continue unless amended according to the rules. In 1975, the threshold was reduced to today’s level of three-fifths of Senators chosen and sworn except for motions to amend the rules, still subject to the two-thirds present and voting requirement.



Solving the Crisis



Amending Rule 22. Since the crisis arises from abuse of Rule 22, the most direct solution would be to amend Rule 22. The Senate implicitly determines its rules by operating under existing rules, re-adopting them “by acquiescence.” The Senate explicitly determines its rules by amending them, as it has done to Rule 22 in the past. A new amendment could change the cloture threshold, affect only nominations rather than to legislation, and its effect on future nominations would be relatively certain, determined by the new text of the rule. While a simple majority can adopt an amendment, invoking cloture depends on its timing.



During a congressional session. Rule 22 requires two-thirds of Senators present and voting.


At the beginning of a congressional session. Before the Senate acquiesces to existing rules, its constitutional authority to determine its rules trumps existing rules and allows a simple majority to invoke cloture on a rules change. In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled: “It is the opinion of the Chair that…the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of the Senate in a previous Congress” (Congressional Record, 1/4/57, p.178). He (CR, 1/8/59, p.96) and Vice President Humphrey (1/14/69, p.593), reaffirmed it.


Seeking a parliamentary ruling. The second approach does not amend Rule 22 but seeks a parliamentary ruling to allow a vote on an individual nomination. Democrats can appeal a favorable ruling on a “question of order” but a motion to table that appeal requires only a simple majority. Tabling the appeal effectively affirms the ruling. If the presiding officer instead submits the question to the full Senate for decision, it would be debatable (Congressional Record, 1/18/67, p.919; CR, 2/20/75, p.3839), requiring 60 votes for cloture. As such, this approach will work only if the presiding officer decides rather than submits the question of order.



Most of the speculation about this approach posits a question of order raising a constitutional issue such as Rule 22 is unconstitutional, at least as applied to judicial nominations. Under longstanding precedent, however, the presiding officer submits to the full Senate questions of order raising constitutional questions, and has consistently done so in the specific context of efforts to change Senate rules. Vice President Nixon ruled in 1957 that “under Senate precedents, a question of constitutionality can only be decided by the Senate itself, and not by the Chair” (Congressional Record, 1/4/57, p.178). He reaffirmed this ruling in 1959 (CR, 1/7/59, p.9), as did Vice Presidents Johnson (CR, 1/28/63, p.1214; 1963 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, p.375, saying this tradition dates back to 1803), Humphrey (CR, 1/18/67, p.918; 1/14/69, p.594), and Rockefeller (CR, 2/20/75, p.3837). To avoid a filibuster, this approach requires the presiding officer’s favorable ruling on a question of order framed in non-constitutional terms and a majority voting to table the ensuing appeal of that ruling. The question of order, and the ruling sustaining it, will determine whether this approach has a limited or substantial effect on future confirmation procedures.



Only the Senate can solve this filibuster crisis, and each of these approaches requires a vote of the Senate, either a vote to amend Rule 22 or a vote to affirm a parliamentary ruling. In doing so, the Senate will be exercising its constitutional authority to determine its own rules, a constitutional solution to a constitutional crisis.



Prepared by the Office of U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, 104 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

_________________________________________________________________


114 posted on 02/14/2005 3:59:12 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: maica

Up to now, I have made generous (for me) donations. Witholding my next donation is the only leverage I have to tell them that I'd like to see some results re judge confirmations.


115 posted on 02/14/2005 3:59:30 PM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster; Howlin; PhiKapMom; Miss Marple; deport; eureka!; section9; BlackRazor; ...

Tee hee hee. Nice way to deflect from the additional $82 billion request.


116 posted on 02/14/2005 3:59:44 PM PST by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time

Doubtful -- Mr. Estrada's wife, Laury, recently passed away. Who would want to be put through what he has had to endure?


117 posted on 02/14/2005 4:03:44 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"(the Maine gals and Chafee)."

Ahh..the 2 girls and the girlie man

118 posted on 02/14/2005 4:08:36 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Much too early to begin the celebration, IMHO. Let's, first, get through the obligatory "Borking", the floor votes, and the swearings in. Until it is a done deal, I will maintain that Frist and Hatch are in for one helluva wrangle.

The party winning this major battle will set the agenda and the tone for the entire second Bush term. Here's hoping the leadership can get everyone pulling in the same direction.


119 posted on 02/14/2005 4:11:02 PM PST by thelastvirgil (Idiot-proof ANYTHING, and someone will build a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

"I want judges who follow the law..not make the law."

Amen!


120 posted on 02/14/2005 4:13:18 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson